Agenda item no._______4_______
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 16 July 2014 in
the Council Chamber, North Norfolk District Council, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr P W Moore (Chairman)
Ms V R Gay
Mrs A Green
Mr J H Perry-Warnes
Mr D Young (sub)
Mr R Reynolds
Mr E Seward
Mr R Shepherd
Mr N Smith
Mr P Terrington
Officers in
Attendance:
The Corporate Director (SB), The Corporate Director (NB), the Head of
Business Transformation and IT, the Head of Economic and Community
Development, the Head of Planning, the Community Projects Manager, the
Environmental Services Officer The Democratic Services Team Leader,
The Democratic Services Officer.
Members in
Attendance:
Mr T FitzPatrick, Mr P Williams, Mr B Cabbell Manners, Mrs L Brettle and
Mrs H Eales
Democratic Services Officer (TGS)
1.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Mrs B McGoun and Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
2.
SUBSTITUTES
Mr D Young for Mrs B McGoun
3.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
One question was received from Mrs J Warner, clerk at Aylmerton Parish Council. She
referred to item 11 on the agenda, Better Broadband for Norfolk and explained that this
was a big issue in her parish. She commented that businesses were struggling due to a
lack of viable broadband coverage. She asked Mrs K O’Kane- who was present to
discuss the Broadband item- and the committee, what the priority system was for
deciding where and how to implement better broadband in the district.
The Committee agreed that it would be easier for Mrs K O’Kane to cover the answer to
this question in her presentation.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
1
16 July 2014
4.
MINUTES
Mr R Reynolds requested that the previous minutes be amended at item 187, points d
and e, to show that he asked questions regarding the implementation of training
regarding domestic violence in GPs surgeries as it was a very important issue. The
Democratic Services Officer agreed to amend this.
The minutes were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
5.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received
6.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None
7.
PETITIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
None received.
8.
CONSIDERATION OF ANY MATTER REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE BY A
MEMBER
None received.
9.
RESPONSES OF THE COUNCIL OR THE CABINET TO THE COMMITTEE’S
REPORTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS
None received.
10.
THE CABINET WORK PROGRAMME
The Committee noted the work programme and its content.
11.
BETTER BROADBAND FOR NORFOLK – PRESENTATION
Ms K O’Kane, Programme Director for Better Broadband for Norfolk at Norfolk County
Council, gave a presentation regarding broadband coverage in the county. She
explained that whilst government funding which had been match funded by the county
council would be able to provide on average 83% of homes in the county with superfast
broadband, district councils had been asked to provide top up funding in order to
support the areas in their districts which were most technologically isolated. She also
outlined methodology for the inputting of fibre optics to support this infrastructure, costs
of the overall project, and the timescale.
Following this, the Corporate Director (SB) outlined the July Cabinet report, which had
been approved at Cabinet, which would allow the district to support this implementation
and provide extra funding in principle. He further explained that survey work would be
undertaken to ensure the extra funding would be worthwhile.
The Chairman queried if all the money that had been allocated by the district would be
spent in north Norfolk. Mrs K O’Kane replied that it would be ring fenced. The Chairman
then invited members to ask questions.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2
16 July 2014
1. Mr R Reynolds queried what the implementation time would be for a town such as
Fakenham, where the town was relatively large but the broadband infrastructure was
not good. Mrs K O’Kane replied that as Fakenham was a ‘head end’ exchange it
would be a 2015 roll out, however as Fakenham was lacking significant
infrastructure at the moment there would be a lot of work to do.
2. Mrs H Eales raised an article she had read in the telegraph, wherein a village in
Lancashire had paid for and provided its own broadband. She commented that
companies such as BT where behind and should have been providing this
infrastructure 10 years ago. She commented that structure to north Norfolk needed
to be provided soon otherwise local communities may end up having to provide their
own support. Mrs K O’Kane commented that there were a small number of local
schemes, however they relied on large local businesses to provide the service, and
should these businesses become unviable the service would disappear.
3. Mr P Williams commented on his own local area, commenting that around him there
seemed to be mostly aluminium cable, and queried if this would have to be re-laid.
Mrs K O’Kane replied that cables in his area may need rearrangement which would
be expensive; meaning that it was less likely that his area was covered by the initial
tranche of funding which would give 83% in Norfolk better broadband. She
commented she would investigate his area further.
4. Ms V Gay commented that in north Norfolk, rural deprivation was a significant issue,
and that members of the public were in effect subsidising areas with better service
coverage. She commented that there was a significant economic disparity prevalent
in rural area which needed to be overcome, and for not just future economic
success, but also for future health and wellbeing, rural areas needed to be provided
with better service and facilities. Mrs K O’Kane commented that she couldn’t affect
pricing levels of broadband, as much of this was regulated by OFCOM and then set
by companies themselves. She commented the best way to approach getting a good
price was via comparison sites which would show the best deals.
5. Mr D Young asked Mrs K O’Kane to explain why extra funding was needed to
provide 91% of the district with better broadband and queried why the initial funding
only covered 83% of the district. She explained that with another £5 million from the
LEP and £1 million from the county council, which would be match-funded by the
government, they could produce 91% of better coverage for the area. The extra £1
million of funding that was being proposed by the Cabinet, which would again be
match funded, would bring coverage in the district up to 95% of better broadband.
She explained that the extra funding was required because at this point the areas
needing upgrading needed significant improvements to provide sufficient
infrastructure. With regards to the last 5% she explained that most of these were
houses outside of villages and instead isolated, individual properties, which made
implementing better technology very expensive. She explained that for these
properties, broadband may never improve due to the cost implications of
improvements. However, she again reiterated that to provide 95% of properties in
the district with better broadband the £1 million that the authority had proposed
should be sufficient, however that surveys and analysis would be carried out before
this amount was committed.
The Leader at this point asked to give an introduction from the Cabinet point of view. He
explained that the report had passed through Cabinet and would be going to Full
Council to approve the budgetary implications regarding the ear marking of £1 million.
He again explained that there was no commitment to spend until sufficient analysis and
surveys of the work required had been carried out. He explained the recommendations
were presented to the Overview and Scrutiny committee to consider.
The committee unanimously
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
3
16 July 2014
AGREED
To recommend the following to Full Council:
1. That £1million is earmarked (in a reserve) from the current year balance and future year
allocations return of the second homes council tax funding and unallocated New Homes
Bonus.
2. That no commitment to spend this earmarked fund is made until the BBfN Programme
has let the next call-off contract and this has been analysed by the District Council, the
detail shared with Members and a recommendation made to Council.
They further requested that members of the committee be kept up to date with progress
on the project.
12.
WASTE UPDATE
The portfolio holder, Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, had provided her apologies for her nonattendance. The Environmental Services Officer introduced the item, saying he covered
the day to day management of the waste contract and would be happy to answer
member questions.
1. The Chairman queried a site in North Walsham and its status as a waste transfer
site, saying he was not made aware of the change. The Environmental Services
Officer explained that waste disposal was a county council function, and this was
ultimately their decision. He further explained however that following reports of such,
the large vehicles were not supposed to go through the town centre and he and his
team would look into this.
2. Mr P Terrington discussed issues in Wells, particularly regarding large waste build
up. The Environmental Services Officer replied that they were engaging with local
business and had put arrangements in place they felt were working, but that these
would be monitored.
3. Mr R Reynolds referred to page 15 of the report at appendix A, and queried where
there were missed collections, if these were the same people each time. He also
asked if it was an issue that the previous Waste and Recycling Manager was no
longer working at NNDC. The Environmental Services Officer replied that the trend
of missed collections was improving but that they didn’t monitor the figures of where
there were repeat misses. He explained that where there were individuals who had
suffered on multiple occasions, a rectification notice would be issued. With regards
to the Waste and Recycling Manager’s leaving, the Environmental Services Officer
replied that he was covering the post at an operational level in the interim, whilst the
Head of Service considered a number of options. He explained that members would
be kept up to date with this.
4. Mr P Williams raised the issue of waste along the Broads following changes to the
waste management in that area. The Environmental Services Officer replied that
there was an upcoming meeting to discuss options but the current plan to withdraw
coverage remained.
5. Mr D Young raised the issue of fly tipping that may become apparent following
changes to the recycling centre charges and access. The Environmental Services
Officer replied that the change had not yet taken place, but they would monitor
levels of fly tipping following the change.
6. Ms V Gay wished to record her thanks to those who worked in waste management
and the waste operatives who worked in the district. She commented that she was
very grateful for their hard work, particularly at going the extra mile when necessary.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
4
16 July 2014
The Corporate Director (NB) then gave a brief update on the dry recyclables contract.
He explained that they were still on target to roll out in October as part of the joint
venture in the Norfolk Waste Partnership. The expansion at the Costessey facility had
been completed and would go into commission in September. He also explained they
were currently sourcing markets for the output materials but that they should be along
the same lines of the original tender. With regards to communicating the change to the
public that all recyclables could be put in one bin, he explained that it was key for there
to be a county-wide initiative, but also that the process did not start too early so that the
public were not confused. Their own launch would be taking place at the Greenbuild
event in September.
1. Mr P Terrington queried how to reduce instances of bins falling over containing glass
waste, which could be dangerous for individuals. He also queried what the status
was of community bottle banks. The Corporate Director replied that, as all glass
waste could be put in one bin, it should be heavy enough to keep the bin upright.
Alternatively, it could be placed in a clear sack or box alongside the usual bin. With
regards to community bottle banks, he commented that they were in discussions
with a number of communities for them to take control of local facilities, and that
members would be kept aware of options.
2. Mr E Seward commented on the importance of a good advertising and
communications strategy, which he hoped would be run effectively. He also queried
what would be happening with food waste. The Corporate Director replied that as a
joint venture, he hoped the communications and advertising strategy would take a
joined up approach and be effective across the county. With regards to food waste,
he explained there were upcoming meetings to discuss the remaining waste streams
which had yet to be considered in a joint venture.
The Chairman thanked officers for their work and members for their comments and the
committee
NOTED
The update
13.
PLANNING SERVICE – OVERVIEW AND FUTURE
The portfolio holder for planning, Mr B Cabbell Manners, introduced this item. He
explained that the planning department had seen significant improvements on
performance and further improvements would be about providing change and flexibility
to the team, particularly with regards to IT systems. He explained that the team would
be going through further changes in the coming months and that members would be
kept aware of these.
1. Mr N Smith referred to page 17 of the report, at table 2.4 and queried what the
acronyms listed were. The Head of Planning replied that they were all types of
formal notices that had been issued, and that PCN stood for Planning Contravention
Notice, that RQFI stood for Requisition for Information, EFN stood for Enforcement
Notice, BCN stood for Breach of Condition Notice, and that TSN stood for
Temporary Stop Notice.
2. Mr P Terrington referred to section 2.8 of the report, querying if the number of
dwellings listed on the site allocations development plan were sufficient and asked if
this amount had increased. He also referred to points 3.1 to 3.3, suggesting that
working with parish councils would be a positive step.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
5
16 July 2014
3. Mr E Seward referred to figures regarding enforcement targets, noting that he was
pleased to see positive progress. He asked for the team to ensure they had
sufficient capacity to support on-going work. The Head of Planning replied that
resource level was an important issue, and that they would be considering this in the
future in order to maintain high performance. She also discussed process, and
suggested that looking at how the system worked would be as effective as ensuring
viable resourcing.
The Chairman thanked the portfolio holder and officers for their information and invited
the Head of Planning to return to the committee in six months to present on further
changes.
14.
UPDATE ON THE BUSINESS TRANSFORMATION PROJECT
The Leader, as portfolio holder, introduced this item. He explained that the Business
Transformation project was primarily about making effective use of technology and
ensuring that the authority was working in the 21st century. Members were then invited
to ask questions.
1. Mr P Terrington commented that the report was very informative, and asked what
the life span of the new information systems would be. The Head of Business
Transformation replied that as there was no single system being input via the
Business Transformation programme, the timescales were variable. He suggested
that new telephone equipment lifespan would generally be round 7 years and
computers around 3. He explained that the key idea was to create as efficient
systems as possible whilst dealing with on-going change and development. Mr P
Terrington asked if all budgetary elements of this were included within the
programme. The Head of Business Transformation replied that the budget had
previously been approved under the original Cabinet report, and where there were
additional costs, providing extra funding would be explicitly requested.
2. Mr E Seward queried whether or not any joint partnerships were currently being
considered. The Leader replied that none were apart from the Revenues and
Benefits joint partnership with Kings Lynn.
3. Mr P Williams requested there be a basic change to the web contact form to allow
the person contacting the council to receive an automated response which included
the content of their request. The Head of Business Transformation commented that
this was a symptom of an individual system being used where there should be a
joined up approach; the principles of which were a fundamental part of the
introduction of new technology.
4. Mr R Reynolds commented that it was interesting to see systems grow up and
develop, and queried if video conferencing would be available externally as well as
internally. The Head of Business Transformation commented that it was still subject
to the outcome of the procurement process, but ideally it would be available both
internally and externally.
5. Mrs A Green queried whether or not member iPads would allow for the filling in of
forms. The Head of Business Transformation commented that the process of
procuring iPads for members had so far been a piecemeal process which made it
difficult to provide individuals with training to bring all members up to a similar
standard. He explained that this should be overcome in the next couple of months,
and the hope was that once members were at a similar place, it would be possible to
develop functionality of the iPads. Mr E Seward commented on this, suggesting that
there were both pros and cons of tablet usage, and the most important element was
consulting members on what they needed them for. The Head of Business
Transformation agreed and commented that once in place there would be a pilot
programme and phased implementation, as well as ensuring flexibility for members,
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
6
16 July 2014
as technology was not always the answer or solution to all issues. He concluded that
the primary goal was increased simplification, efficiency and flexibility for members.
The Chairman thanked members and officers for their comments and the committee
NOTED
The report
15.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RIGHTS – A GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION
The Community Projects Manager introduced this item. He explained that the report
included all the details and he was happy to answer any questions. He updated
members that under the Right to Bid, 13 applications out of 29 had been listed so far;
under the Right to Challenge they had had one successful application via the Wells
Maltings Trust, and with regards to the Right to Build and the Right to Reclaim Land the
authority had yet to receive any applications.
The Chairman queried the non-attendance of the portfolio holder and requested that all
portfolio holders attend in the future. The Corporate director (SB) replied that some of
these issues could be overcome via a different agenda presentation which he would
look into with the Democratic Services Team Leader.
The Chairman then invited members to ask questions on the report.
1. Mr P Terrington queried why there had not been a significant number of applications
and asked if this could be attributed to a lack of public knowledge and understanding
on community engagement rights and also due to a degree of cynicism. He also
queried if certain authority-owned land, such as toilets, were exempt from these
community rights. The Community Project Manager replied that to nominate toilets
as a community asset would be difficult as they were open to general use and in the
main mostly used by visitors to North Norfolk. He explained the Council’s
Community Asset Transfer Policy and Process when considering Council assets
was the best way to offer opportunities for the community to take forward any
interest in the transfer of assets held specifically in NNDC ownership.
2. Mr R Reynolds asked for more information on the Community Right to Reclaim
Land. The Community Projects Manager explained that it was about bringing a
community building or land back into effective use. The Corporate Director gave an
example of a site that would potentially fit these criteria, and explained that by his
understanding, it was about bringing about a sale on a site that had particular
community prominence or concern in order to bring it back to effective community
use.
3. Mr D Young queried why there was such a high rejection rate under the Right to Bid.
He also enquired as to the level of publicity provided to Community Engagement
Rights. The Community Projects Manager replied that the government had provided
organisations such as Community Matters with funding to go out to regions to
disseminate information and provide independent and objective advice on
Community Rights measures. The Community Projects Manager also commented
that local authorities had to be careful with the extent that they promoted these
initiatives as it could leave them open to potential disputes for bias, rather local
authorities were responsible for ensuring there was a suitable infrastructure in place
to allow communities to take part in bids. The Community Project Manager also
suggested that there were a number of useful guides available, as well as
summaries on the authority’s own website available to help organisations. With
regards to the high rejection rate of right to bid, the Community Project Manager
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
7
16 July 2014
commented that often it was difficult to provide proof of a building’s use or ability for
use as a community asset, which made it unlikely to become listed as an Asset of
Community Value as part of the process. The Head of Economic and Community
Development further commented that communities could utilise these rights for
numerous different reasons and that at the moment communities seemed to be
‘testing the water’ of the powers available to them. He suggested that they were
useful for producing meaningful discussion between local authorities and
communities, particularly if the Community Rights process was not appropriate; it
allowed officers to be proactive and identify community issues and work with
individuals to a mutually satisfactory goal.
4. Mr E Seward commented that he had found the report informative and encouraged
the empowering of communities. He commented that he believed the work the Wells
Maltings Trust had done had been a particularly successful and good example of
community rights in the district. With regards to the Right to Bid, he queried whether
or not the thirteen community assets which had been listed would be able to raise
sufficient funds in the allocated 6 month time period. He also commented that many
communities perceived parts of these rights, such as neighbourhood plans, to be a
waste of time and that they wouldn’t be engaged with effectively. He concluded that
the rights seemed to be modest in power for communities, and that since their
instigation they had not had much of an impact of community engagement and
powers. The Head of Economic and Community Development agreed at the
suggestion that there had been modest uptake of the powers; . He explained that he
believed at NNDC they had a good relationship with local communities which
reduced the need for confrontational approaches to change, and was instead
facilitatory and proactive in nature.
The Chairman thanked members and officers for their comments, and the committee
AGREED
To provide the report and minutes of the meeting to the relevant government
consultation on Community Engagement Rights
16.
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY UPDATE
The Democratic Services Team Leader introduced this item. She explained to members
that the following week’s housing scrutiny meeting was still due to go ahead, however
Victory Housing association were now not able to attend. Members could still provide
questions and they would be passed on to officers at the housing association for
answering. The Chairman registered his disappointment with Victory for their decision to
pull out of the event. The Corporate Director reminded members that Broadland and
Flagship housing would still be in attendance.
Mr P Terrington queried if the Energy Strategy which would be on the committee
schedule in September would cover fracking. The Corporate Director replied that yes it
would.
The meeting concluded at 12.40 pm
____________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
8
16 July 2014